Re: Question to devs: ipw2200 w/ RADIOTAP/PROMISCUOUS

Axel Thimm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> users are asking me whether ATrpms could enable some commented by
> default parts of the drivers. For ipw2200 it's about
> CONFIG_IPW2200_RADIOTAP and CONFIG_IPW2200_PROMISCUOUS.
> 
> What is the reason for commenting them and not enabling by default?
> And if it's not due to some no-go issues (like stability/maturity of
> code) would the devs ack packagers to enable them?

They are not a part of any formal testing plan; so we don't really know
how many people are using them, how stable they are for those users, or
whether having them enabled negatively impacts non-users of those
features.  We typically only enable by default those features that are a
part of our formal testing cycles (there have been some variances to
that in the past due to some oversight).

So -- there is no quantifiable reason not to enable those features in
the packages you build.  I assume that some users are using the radiotap
and promiscuous modes (I tend to always edit them to be enabled on all
of my installs) and we haven't seen an influx of issues since their
introduction.

I think toggling the default to =y in non .0 versions would be fine.

Toggling to =y in the stable releases could (theoretically) cause a user
some grief if there was ever a problem and they tried to resolve it
through Intel Customer Support vs. through the myriad of web forums and
mailing lists.  Even that, however, is likely pretty low risk.  If we
see lots of problems emerge as a result, you could always toggle them
back to =n.

Or maybe provide both packages (foo.rpm and foo-all-enabled.rpm)?

James

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642